Loading summary
Transcript61 lines
- [00:00]
Charlie Sykes
Foreign. I'm Charlie Sykes. Welcome to this episode of to the Contrary podcast. We are recording this the day after Elon Musk humiliation in Wisconsin. So, look, I'm still in the vibe of talking about that. Somebody actually asked me, are Democrats making too much of all of this? And I said, look, you know what? As a principle, hope is better than despair. Energy is better than lassitude. Fighting is better than surrendering. But we have a lot to talk about today. There's a lot going on in this particular news cycle, and I am really delighted to welcome back my old friend, good friend, Josh Kroshauer, who is the editor in chief of Jewish Insider. Good to have you back, Josh.
- [00:51]
Josh Kroshauer
Charlie, it is really great to be back with you. And thank. Never a dull moment. And we got our first elections, too, this week, so at least notable elections of consequence that everyone.
- [01:00]
Charlie Sykes
Oh, no, I'm not. Well. And of course, then we also are now getting the spin, and you and I are speaking on Wednesday afternoon. We're getting the spin that Elon Musk is leaving Doge. I kind of interpret that as cover your ass spin. Certainly not a coincidence that would happen after the shellacking in Wisconsin. But, you know, my default setting with the Trump administration is do not trust verify. I think it's gonna be hard for Donald Trump to scrape Elon Musk off the bottom of his shoe. What do you think? Where do you think that goes?
- [01:34]
Josh Kroshauer
Well, I will say this about Musk, is that the one thing we've learned about Trump in his second term is that even though he tries to ignore the media reporting, the scrutiny, that he's tried to blow past norms as aggressively as ever, he is very attuned to public opinion. And every time Elon Musk kind of cuts too close to the bone, and you can look at in the polls and how Musk's favorability rating has dipped faster than any public figure. And I remember this short period of time with these aggressive cuts to the federal government. And I think all you have to do is look at the results in Wisconsin to. To understand how quickly and how ferociously a lot of swing voters and certainly a lot of Democrats are mobilized to vote against his candidate in the state Supreme Court justice race. So, yes, he's become a lightning rod. He is anchor. He is. He's sort of the heat shield for Trump. And I think the big question, Charlie, is whether whether Trump ultimately gets get. Takes the heat for the consequences of these very deep and significant cuts to the federal government.
- [02:46]
Charlie Sykes
No, I think that's a savvy point that in some ways he has been a heat shield. However, in Wisconsin, it was, Donald Trump's face was on every single piece of literature for the conservative candidate. I mean, so this was as much a referendum on Trump as it was on Musk. And the fact that this is, you know, everything's closer in Wisconsin. It's generally decided by 20,000 votes. This was a blowout. This was, and this was a big turnout election. This is not just your normal, you know, odd year, off year election. There was, there was a turnout of 2.4 million voters. And the conservative candidate, who, by the way, Brad Schimmel is a former Attorney General of the state of Wisconsin and he's a good candidate for the Republicans and for the conservatives, he lost by 10 points to Susan Crawford after Elon Musk dumps in $26 million. So I, look, I think this is, this was extraordinary. I think almost everything that Elon Musk did in Wisconsin backfired. I think the timing was very, very revealing. You know, you know, the voters were going to the polls right as they were hearing about the attacks on Social Security, the cuts to health care, signal gate, all of that, that stuff. But you know, what, what, what it means for, what it means for Musk, we don't know. But, but I want to ask you this because I know you're pretty wired in. There are a bunch of Republicans in Washington who are probably not disappointed by this, who were kind of rooting for Elon Musk to take a fall because they're thinking, you know, the guy's gotten too big, he's too arrogant and we need to find a way to cut him loose in some way. And this helps them, doesn't it? I mean, there's a faction among Republicans that is probably not unhappy that Elon Musk fell on his face in Wisconsin.
- [04:32]
Josh Kroshauer
Yeah, I mean, certainly I've heard those conversations. Musk has, by virtue of his lack of political savvy, lack of charisma, and you know, being responsible for not just cuts to the waste, fraud and abuse that, that he claims, but there's been a lot of misrepresentation in his public appearances on how deep and how just hasty and chaotic these, these cuts have been. Not just, maybe more politically palpable cuts to agencies like usaid, but cuts to the HHS yesterday, where you have people who deal with cancer research or deal with life saving treatments who are lifetime public servants, who have won bipartisan praise, just rationally getting fired without any real process. I think that is going to be where the Rubber hits the road politically. You know, I think people want government to be pared down. I think that was part of Donald Trump's mandate, if there was a mandate from the 2024 election. But the way it's been done and, you know, and just the chaos behind it has really lost him support, as we've talked about. Just look at his poll numbers. He is one of the least liked people in the Trump administration. He's well known by almost everyone now in the public. And he was, he was the. The central figure by his own. By his own volition. He goes to Green Bay on, on Sunday, by the way. You know, we talk kind of number crunching. You know, Wisconsin better than anyone, Charlie. But I noticed that in Brown county, the county expanding. Great. Not only did he lose, but that was one of the biggest swings from the 2024 election towards, towards this election, towards the. The left. Trump won Brown county and 2024, and Susan Crawford easily won Brown county in.
- [06:21]
Charlie Sykes
The state, which is a real bellwether county. And, you know, that is the home of Green Bay. And they were pushing Brett Favre, believe it or not, as a big surrogate. You made a couple of points that I think are just absolutely crucial, which is, you know, that for all of his Master of the Universe vibe, Elon Musk is not very good at politics. His level of ignorance and tone deafness when it comes to politics is extraordinary, which makes him dangerous for Republicans. He's not charismatic. He thinks he's charismatic. I mean, he thinks he's a rock star. You know, he shows up, you know, on stage and he's throwing, you know, cheeseheads into the crowd and everything. But the fact is that he doesn't have the political gene. He doesn't have the political instinct. And at some point, members of Congress have to know that he's going to. He, you know, he's gonna try to serve them a ginormous shit sandwich and tell them they have to eat it. And I'm guessing that many of them would certainly like to pass on that.
- [07:18]
Josh Kroshauer
Well, one of the things covering politics for as long as I have is knowing how many donors, how many business people think that they know politics. They want to play fantasy politics. And then when it comes of all ideological stripes, it's not just a partisan or center life center. It's people who think politics is easy. They watch it from the outside, and then they're in the middle of the. Of the storm and they have no clue. Clue. I'm a big believer. Know what? You're good At. Right. If you're good at making widgets, make widgets. And if you're good at building rockets that go to space, do that. Elon Musk got addicted to politics this cycle. He campaigned for Trump in Pennsylvania. Maybe he thought he made a difference in that race. And then he tried to replicate. What did he say? He said this was like Wisconsin State Supreme Court race was sort of a test for the future of civilization. I mean, he laid the stakes pretty high and he lost.
- [08:12]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, yeah. It's hard to say that the fate of Western civilization is at stake, and then two days later say, yeah, well, I, you know, I tried. No, no, no, no. Big no. But this point you're making about rich people thinking that they know about politics, it's sort of quadrupled when it comes to billionaires. Right. Who, you know, think obviously they're the smartest person in the room because they generally surround themselves with people who are telling them, boy, you've lost some weight. You look so good, you are so smart. And so as a result, they carry around their own bubbles. So all of this is. Is exaggerated. All of this is exaggerated. So I want to talk about, you know, we can't really talk about the tariffs in too much detail today because we're taping this before the Great Reveal. But, you know, by the time people watch this, they'll. We'll be in the. We'll be in the middle of a trade war, won't we, Josh, of some kind, you know, reciprocal tariffs or some sort of thing. We're talking about President of the United States imposing trillions of dollars in new taxes without congressional action. I've admitted this. I don't know. Did you know, you know, that the president of the United States unilaterally can just raise taxes like that? I didn't. I think it was like four or five years ago that I finally realized that you don't actually need Congress to pass a massive tax increase.
- [09:31]
Josh Kroshauer
Well, who knew Congress would be. Especially the Republicans who have stood for free trade, stood against tariffs for most of their. Many of them, at least for much of their political careers, and are not saying a word in terms of expressing skepticism. You do see some folks on the hallways of Capitol Hill having some nervousness about how it will affect the constituents in their home states. A lot of the farm state senators and lawmakers have especially been worried in recent days. But look, there is this reticence, the clash between the desire to please Trump and not alienate people in the Republican Party that support Trump at all costs versus the real life impact of these very aggressive tariffs that are set to be imposed. You see this a lot in politics. We follow this stuff day to day. Most Americans, frankly, don't have the time. And frankly, many of them have good sense. But the rubber hits the road when you actually see the impact of like a car costing, you know, thousands of dollars more as a result of the tariffs or, you know, the, you saw this, you know, to take an example from the Biden administration, there was a lot of silly talk about inflation and not mattering. And then all of a sudden people were paying more for groceries and people saw that the price, the price, the rise in prices at the grocery store. And all of a sudden you could see the polling move months later against all the happy talk. And there's a lot of happy talk in this White House. There's a lot of denial of reality, a lot of spin that is impervious to any kind of even reasonable and good, good natured criticism. And ultimately the people are going to decide. And I think, I think you'll see we've already started to see in the results in the Tuesday elections an early sign perhaps, but we're starting to see the political capital being drained from, from the Trump and Republican Party coffers because of this hubris.
- [11:18]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, so I want to talk about how you pissed off JD Vance before we move on to other things. Okay. So I, I don't know. You have a thing with J.D. vance. I'm just, I'm just going to read this here. This is from. I have a lousy, I have a lousy print out of, of this. I'm sorry. Vice President J.D. vance raged at Jewish Insider Thursday morning, calling it an anti JD Rag. Never didn't know the word anti JD Rags, but you know, calling it an anti JD Reg. And Editor in Chief Gross, Josh Croshauer, the biggest hack in Washington while ripping what he called a hit piece. So congrats on that being called the biggest hack in Washington by the Vice President of the United States. Josh, what did you do to piss him off so much? Why is he coming after you?
- [12:10]
Josh Kroshauer
It was a fascinating.
- [12:11]
Charlie Sykes
Because most people like you, Josh.
- [12:14]
Josh Kroshauer
Well, it was fascinating to see that tweet Thursday. Look, it was based on just straight up reporting. We have a reporter who covers Capitol Hill who was interviewing Republican senators both on record and on background about Signal Gate, about The comments that J.D. vance made in those Signal chats where he was the one point person who seemed to be the most skeptical of attacking the Houthis in Yemen. And we Asked Republican senators what they thought about that. A lot of them voiced their disagreement, at least on background with Vice President Vance. And we reported those facts. I think Vance, it was interesting. He called Jewish Insider an anti JD Rag, not an anti Trump. Very personalized. We've reported. We actually.
- [13:00]
Charlie Sykes
It's like he wants his own things, right? He's moving on. He has to have the anti JD Blank. Right.
- [13:07]
Josh Kroshauer
Well, I mean, look, the bigger story is not about personalities and myself and Vice President Vance, but it's about these issues and disagreements within the administration over foreign policy and national security issues. And even as many Republicans are very loyal to Trump, and even as they, you know, speak from the same hymnal, you could see in those signal chats some, some hints of real disagreement over how to approach some, some serious foreign policy issues. How, you know, aggressively should we go after an Iranian proxy like the Houthis? And you could see that Vance was on the more, you know, reticent wing of the chat. He didn't think it was urgent to go after the Houthis as part of that, that, that strike. And you could see other, other members ranging ranging from, you know, Pete Hegseth, the Defense secretary, or the national Security Advisor, Mike Waltz, who were, you know, very, very much keyed in and were aligned with the president's mission. So reading those, those chats, there are a lot of things to glean from them. But it did look like JD Or Vice President Vance, I should say, was on the outside looking in, and we were reporting on that, getting Republican reaction to that. And I don't think he found that reporting very, very, you know, very comforting. So, look, we, we're doing our jobs. We're reporting the, the news and, and, and really, on that issue, specifically the divisions and discussions within the Republican Party over foreign policies, it's a major one, and we'll be continuing to report on that. And the vice President can say what he wants to say about our coverage.
- [14:35]
Charlie Sykes
No, I mean, we could devote an entire podcast talking about their relations with the media and how they try to bend the media to their will and the success they've had so far. But I want to move on to something much, much more substantive that you've been writing about and thinking about, particularly since October 7, the October 7 attacks, and the rise of. The shocking rise of anti Semitism, including on university campuses. But we're now at a moment where the Trump administration is aggressively, number one, going after students who might have engaged in some pro Palestinian activities, even though they were, you know, held green cards, deporting them, seizing them, arresting them on the street. At the same time, we had the major threats against Columbia University and now Harvard, you know, threatening the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal aid because they did not more forcefully combat anti Semitism. So we have the tension between fighting anti Semitism, but also the heavy hand of the government. So let's talk about the cases of these students. Where do you come down? What have you been thinking? What have you been writing and thinking about? The administration's basically saying that if you engaged in anti Israeli propaganda of any kind and you're a foreign student, we have the right to rendition you. What do you think?
- [16:01]
Josh Kroshauer
So let's take a step back because it does seem like we've gone from one one, one end to the other, right? I mean, how did we get to this position where you have some of the most prestigious schools in the country, Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, where, you know, anti Semitic behavior, anti Semitic activism was allowed on campus with very little punishment. This problem, frankly, you know, we've been, we've been covering, especially on certain campuses, the scourge of anti Semitism and, you know, pro Hamas, Pro Hezbollah, Pro October 7th sentiment in pockets at some of these rallies that were not, you know, that were essentially indulged by many of these universities leadership. So we literally had about 18 months. Right, Charlie, about university leaders. We saw the hearing on Capitol Hill where university presidents were speechless and talking about how they were going to confront the rise in anti Semitism on their campuses. Many of them actually got ousted from their jobs. So we're at this point where there was just this. No, no leadership, a vacuum of leadership. Some universities, I think, did better than others. But the ones in the spotlight, the ones we're talking about in the news, like Columbia, Harvard in particular, continued to have to face these, these challenges. So President Trump comes into office. One of his big campaign promises was cracking down on anti Semitism. A lot of the stuff he talked about on the campaign trail. But what you point to, Charlie, is that you see people. And I think the. The hope was that people who are actually supportive of Hamas, who are here on student visas, by the way, people who are supporting. If there was someone with an ISIS flag in Harvard yard, I think there would be a strong consensus that they shouldn't be in this country. Right. I mean, I think that's a pretty, pretty consensus position. HAMAS is a U.S. designated terrorist organization. And we know that there are a number of people who have been. We don't know if they're foreign students or Americans. But for those who are not here, here, not, not, you know, people here on student visas, you know, that, that was, I think, a pretty widespread, there was widespread support certainly in the Jewish community that people who are displaying terrorists supporting terrorist groups, waving terrorist paraphernalia, that, that would be something that could be, could be used to, to, to deport, to deport you. In the case, some of these cases that we're hearing about now, there's one case out of Tufts University, which I know a lot of Americans have seen the, the footage, this is a woman video who wrote, co wrote an op ed supporting bd. You know, supporting. It was an anti Israel op ed, but it was, it was her. People have the right to express their views on foreign policy. And that's, that's not supporting Hamas. That doesn't mean you're supporting a terrorist group. And when reporters, including JI but we've been trying to, you know, get, get more detail from the Department of Homeland Security, but like trying to get evidence that there's actually support for any support in this case where the student expressed support for Hamas or any sympathy for terrorist groups and that we have not gotten that, that, that, that evidence from, from the government. So that, that is, that is a real concern when you have people who are not involved in terrorist activity, not supporting Hamas, people who just happen to express an opinion critical of Israel or comments supporting bds. I guess in the case of the Tufts student, you know, that, that's not, I think, what a lot of people were anticipating when the promises were to crack down on people who had actually been affiliated or associated with terrorist groups. So we've gone from one extreme to the other. And like in our politics today, Charlie, there's really no middle ground where we should be able to agree that people who support terrorist organizations that are not here in the country, you know, that are here on student visas.
- [19:38]
Charlie Sykes
Right.
- [19:39]
Josh Kroshauer
That I think that that's a pretty consensus view that they don't, you know, they can be deported. But when it comes to expressing your view, expressing your views on foreign policy, even if it's an unpopular view, that should not be. I mean, what happened at Tufts University in Somerville, I think a lot of people are concerned about.
- [19:57]
Charlie Sykes
Well, and it's very clear that folks in the Trump administration are not making some of those distinctions and also that they don't seem to be particularly concerned with due process. And I guess one of the things that really worries me is whether or not, because we've seen the way that they can change public opinion, delegitimize certain institutions and traditions and norms, whether or not they were going to convince a large majority of Americans, or at least their base, that these people don't deserve due process. The due process is not important. And now the numbers from the polls that I've seen are kind of mixed, that there's overwhelming support for, you know, being able to deport people who might have been engaged in disruption of university campuses. But there's also seems to be now some pushback against the lack of due process for some of the Venezuelan. And I'm switching topics slightly. You know, like the, the innocent, you know, man who was, you know, snatched off the street because he had the wrong kind of tattoo and has been sent to El Salvador. So people are paying attention, but it seems very, very dangerous to me. I mean, that these things like free speech and due process that we probably took for granted are now in play.
- [21:14]
Josh Kroshauer
There are. There's a lot to unpack there. Charlie, let's go to the Venice with the case of the Venezuelan.
- [21:19]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah.
- [21:21]
Josh Kroshauer
In some of these cases that we've been learning about, the barber who that was had a tattoo of, I think. Was it. Was he the one who had the tattoo of Real Madrid or. It was basically, there were misrepresentations from the US Government about why the claiming that he was in an MS.13 gang, and they've not provided any evidence in a court of law to back up their assertions. There's another, There, a couple cases. There was one, a man in Maryland who was picked up, and the Atlantic did a good job reporting on that case. And again, the DHS has not provided any evidence backing up their claims, and they've been struggling to do so in a court of law where. Thank God, that's not social media. It's not. It's not. It's not the spin room at the White House. You actually have to have facts and evidence to back up your, your case. So, yes, it's, it's, it's very disturbing. I believe some of those people who were caught up in the, in the, in the whole deportation to that horrible El Salvador prison also may have been here. They may have been receiving humanitarian protections here in the United States. I mean, and you know that the Trump administration has been trying to, like, cancel the humanitarian protections for people who are trying to escape from tyrannical regimes like Venezuela into this country. And then the whole America being a shiny, shining city on the hill for people who are oppressed, it's out the window in this administration's view. So, I mean, you're Right, Charlie, that due process, the lack of due process is a huge problem. It's also just the line, the fact that we don't have any evidence to back up these wild assertions being made by the administration.
- [23:00]
Charlie Sykes
It's not new, it's not a new observation to say that the cruelty is sometimes the point, but the celebration of the cruelty is really rather extraordinary. And I read an article and at first I thought it was a little bit over the top, but I keep coming back to it, talking about the cruelty pornography that seems to be very popular. Now on the right you have Kristi Noem, you know, showing up in tight fitting sweaters to pose in front of, you know, a jail cell full of tattooed men and just sort of reveling in the, the cruelty. There, it's, it is, there's, there's, it feels, it feels increasingly dangerous that we are treating people like that and that there's a large constituency for doing all of that. The brutality. Now in the case of one of the, of the detainees, they've admitted they, they arrested him and deported him by mistake, but are now saying that they don't have the power to bring him back, which is ridiculous. I mean, that's complete bullshit.
- [23:58]
Josh Kroshauer
Right?
- [23:58]
Charlie Sykes
Like Donald Trump can't get on the phone and bring somebody back from El Salvador. I mean, the guy from El Salvador has been, you know, kissing, has been kissing Donald Trump's toes for how long? But it is interesting that at least in one case they've actually admitted that they fucked up, but they're not going to do anything about it.
- [24:13]
Josh Kroshauer
Yeah, I mean that, that is outrageous that you, you say, oh, we made a mistake, but we're not gonna, we're not gonna even get out of jail. Bring him back to, bring him back to the country and make sure he, you know, he, he gets that restitution. There is sort of a cruelty, as you note, Charlie, to, to that look, I mean, it's going to be interesting to see how the politics of this play out. This administration is cocky, confident that they won the November election because they were voters were dissatisfied with the Biden administration's handling, lax handling of the border, that there was a political mandate, widespread mandate to crack down on illegal immigration. Now they've gone well beyond illegal immigration. As I noted. Many of these people seem to have been here, at least some of them seem to have been here illegally. They had some humanitarian protections that were disregarded. But the test is, and you see people like Stephen Miller or the vice president defending these deportations, defending the disregard for due process. But they think that the politics are on their side. They think that this is, this is one of their strongest issues. Now, it's very easy for someone to look at a poll and assume that it's, that that public support is going to remain static indefinitely. The hubris of overreach, of doing things incompetently, doing things with a cruel approach, you know, a cruel tone to how they're handling the situations, could quickly burn a lot of that political capital. We'll see. You know, certainly like the separation of families, for instance, in the first term was, was a, you know, was a moment where Trump did see a notable loss of public support, even though I think a lot of Americans broadly agreed with taking a tougher position on immigration.
- [26:03]
Charlie Sykes
Well, I know the point that I wanted to make about that, about the Kristi Noem photo photo op, because you and I are both old enough to remember when Abu Ghraib was considered a scandal, when it was an international disgrace. And now they're posing with prisoners as if it is a photo op that we've actually transitioned to it. And it felt like kind of a, okay, this is how far we've come when it comes to the cruelty. Okay. Do you mind if I switch topics to get to politics a little bit? Because I want to get your take on what's going on with the Democrats. They had a very, very good week this week, you know, full stop. There's no question about it. Talk to me a little bit about Cory Booker because there's been this jockeying for who's going to stand up and do it. And you gotta, I sensed a lot of Democrats, a lot of liberals got a tingle up their leg watching Cory Booker do his Jimmy Stewart, Mr. Smith goes to Washington thing, which was actually kind of impressive. So is Cory Booker. So where does Cory Booker go from here? Is he a thing now? What do you think?
- [27:10]
Josh Kroshauer
Spartacus? Yeah, no, I, look, there's an interesting debate going on in the Democratic Party and they're trying to avoid the conversation about do we go to further to the left or further to the center and trying to talk more about do.
- [27:24]
Charlie Sykes
We gonna have to have that conversation?
- [27:27]
Josh Kroshauer
Well, and Cory Booker is an interesting person in that context, but there's also the thing that they're trying to focus on now is who's going to fight and who's going to just be much more. And in that, in that filibuster which is now set, set an all time record, Capitol Hill record, beating Strom Thurmond, incidentally, Booker showed that he's willing to, I mean, he's, he, he. I can tell you a lot. A lot of my liberal friends were texting me and asking me if I'd seen the fact that Booker was about to break the record. So he captured the. At a time when Democrats are worried that they're not capturing social media attention, viral attention, a Booker show that he's willing to fight. He's willing to speak for 24 plus hours and show impressive. So that matters. I mean, getting, getting the Democratic base off, off its couch and back into fighting mode I think is an important predicate for the party to get back on its feet. Ultimately, and I've said this quite a bit in the last couple weeks, the Democrats are going to get back into the game because of the Republican Party's, the governing party's excess and overreach. So I think there's a lot of debate going on internally in the Democratic Party about strategy and tactics. Ultimately, what people don't vote about the, about the views of the opposition party, mainly, it's mainly on the competence and the, and the success or lack thereof of the governing party. So, look, to get the party excited that you saw, you saw in the elections on Tuesday, you know, the Democratic base did show up even in some red districts down in Florida. But ultimately, it's going to be taking advantage of the missteps that we're seeing from the Trump administration, namely on the economy and the tariffs.
- [29:05]
Charlie Sykes
No, I think that's right. I think that we're still in the first, what, 72, 73 days of the administration. Look, I think the Democrats need to engage in a lot of introspection. I think they really do need to ask themselves why their brand is so toxic. They do need to talk about why they are not connecting with people who used to be Democratic voters. I think that has to take place. But you're right. I mean, ultimately, the midterms and 2028 will be decided by how people view the ruling regime, what's going on there. But I'm a little skeptical. Look, I've made it very clear I'm skeptical of the folks that think that the future of the party is more Bernie Sanders and more aoc. But I do think that the reason they're getting so much buzz is because they're the ones who fight as opposed to rolling over. So I think that's wide open. So who do you see as rising stars? If we set aside AOC and Bernie? Who are you looking at? I hadn't, I did not have Cory Booker on My card before now I would have given an answer like something like Pete Buttigieg I think is worth watching. I'm very interested in what he's going to do. I'm interested in, you know, Abigail Spanberger is going to be elected governor of Virginia. I think she's a centrist. I think she's a rising star. I don't know that she's presidential at this, this point. But who are you looking at as, as somebody that's going to step into that role?
- [30:34]
Josh Kroshauer
Yeah, I think it's going to be someone we're not talking about as much right now. Wes Moore, the Maryland governor, I think is someone to keep an eye on. Charismatic. I think Democrats need a, they have a. Unlike the Republican Party that has always had the ideological unity for the most part. The Democrats have always been a hodgepodge of different coalitions and interests. More, you know, has a good story to tell biographically. He's now in his first term as governor of Maryland, has the career. I mean I've met the governor on a couple occasions. He's, he's got that, that it factor that you look for in a national political figure. So I, you know, I think Wes Moore is someone I would keep an eye on. Josh Shapir, I think a governor, someone who actually has shown that they can actually achieve the thick things. Right. Charlie, the book, you know you've been following this book Abundance by Ezra Klein and I have. I think it's a very timely critique that the party is just, you know, twiddles its thumbs and, and, and Myers worthy goals and bureaucratic red tape. So if you're Josh Shapiro and you're the governor of Pennsylvania and you help build i95 after fell apart in that one stretch in a very short amount of time, that is a, that is a sign that you're, you're a party or you're a leader that can actually get things done. And I think that's a, that's a, you know, that's something that they're going to want to, that any, any candidate, any nominee is going to want to be able to tout. Okay. You know, Gavin Newsom is also fascinating, but we could talk more about him.
- [31:55]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, I just, I, I'm not, I'm not feeling, I'm not feeling that. But, but it's really interesting you bring up that book about the, about Abundance because I was thinking the exact same thing. One of the problems the Democrats have is that they have a governance problem that they, that they come up with policies that don't actually work. And, and, and this is a book written by, by progressives who talk about all of the red tape that make it impossible to get anything done, make it impossible to have broadband installed or charging stations for electric vehicles or housing built. The Biden administration made a big deal about, you know, the billions of dollars that were going to be invested in creating this electric vehicle infrastructure. Right. And apparently, correct me if I'm wrong because I haven't read the whole book, but I think they ended up building four stations.
- [32:44]
Josh Kroshauer
Yeah.
- [32:44]
Charlie Sykes
Five, five, five. And it's like, okay, there's something wrong here. You can't get things done. Democrats, if they preside over cities that appear to be failing or bureaucracies that do not deliver, that's going to be a problem. And so you do have this movement in the Democratic Party that says, listen, we need to be a party that actually accomplishes things, gets things done and doesn't tie ourselves up in bureaucracy, red tape and, you know, political litmus tests.
- [33:13]
Josh Kroshauer
Look, I like Pete Buttigieg a lot, but he, he, politically speaking, he's part of the problem in that he doesn't have a good line about how you could spend, how you could tout a big federal spending package that's supposed to help accelerate the transition to electric vehicles and you build like single digit number of electric charging stations with, with the billions of dol that that's allocated. That is something that is, is going to hang over his head if he ever wanted to run for national politics. Gavin Newsom, like I, I've actually been pretty impressed with what Newsom's doing politically. Maybe it's not authentic, but he certainly is trying to pivot to the middle. But like California, how isn't California the epicenter of a lot of these problems where, you know, you, you, you back in the Obama administration, there was money allocated to build high speed rail and how much of it has been built?
- [33:58]
Charlie Sykes
I mean, total fiasco.
- [33:59]
Josh Kroshauer
Embarrassing. Right. So I do think Democrats need to find leaders that represent the future that are not tied to the baggage of the past. Cory, you know, I've always been sort of bullish on Cory Booker, but I do think that anyone who ran for President in 2020, Kamala Harris, learned this the hard way. But anyone who raised their hand during that presidential primary, these far left positions on cultural issues, on economic issues, on immigration issues, I just think, and Booker was one of those people that is going to come back if he ever wanted to run for president again, to haunt him. So I think Democrats are going to need to look past, past the left. I don't think AOC is frankly going to wear well if she ever wanted to run for president. No, Bernie's either. And I think anyone who, you know, bought into that left wing dogma from the past is going to have that saddled against them if they ever want to run for president. So I think looking at some of the new governors, Moore and Shapiro, I think are two, two names that really catch my eye. But there, there are a few other upand comers. I like Jared Polis personally in Colorado. He's someone who actually has really fought the bureaucracy and tried to get things done. You know, I'm not sure if he's quite as, you know, whether he wants to run for president or has quite the same political ambitions, but he's someone too, who, who, who, whose governing model in Colorado is well worth looking at.
- [35:16]
Charlie Sykes
Well, just as, as, as a, as a footnote here during, you know, during the Supreme Court election where we tested out all of the, all of the different culture war, all of the different themes, one of the things that kept coming up over and over again is the radical left wants to make Wisconsin more like California. And that, that is, that's, that's a dis. I'm not sure that you could say people, you, they want, these people want to make Wisconsin more like Pennsylvania. It doesn't, that doesn't have the same resonance, but there is that sense. It's also interesting that Elon Musk had a very deceptive campaign. It was text messages that look like they were supporting Susan Crawford. Reason I'm bringing this up is for people who think that the answer is to move further to the left. That part of the Trump strategy was to paint every single Democrat as if they were a far left candidate who raised their hands, who, you know, supported defunding the police, who supported de incarceration, who were all in on trans athletes playing in girls sports, all of that. So from the point of view of the Republicans, this is, this is their playbook to portray every single Democrat as far left. So I'm not sure that the answer is then to nominate somebody from the far left. Okay, in a few minutes, sorry, really quickly.
- [36:34]
Josh Kroshauer
One was Wisconsin Centric, who ran against ron Johnson in 2022, who adopted some of those same Mandela Barnes. And on a year where Democrats were winning a lot of these closed Senate races, Mandela Barnes lost. Right. So there is a price you pay when you adopt, you know, especially on crime and, you know, those very important cultural issues when you're too far to the Left, it's going to cost you and it could cost you very dearly in close elections.
- [37:00]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, this hurts because, you know, yes, here in Wisconsin, if Mandela Barnes was the Democratic candidate against Ron Johnson, if he had gotten the same number of votes as the Democratic governor, Tony Evers was on the ballot at the same time, Ron Johnson would not be a United States senator. So there were clearly Democrats who said, yeah, I'm willing to vote for Democrats up and down the ballot. But Mandela Barnes just, you know, with the Bolsh ICE T shirts and, you know, it was, it was too much. Okay, one last media question. Are you a member of the White House Correspondents Association? Do you ever go to those events? Are you one of the people to show up at the White House Correspondent Association? Big shindig every year.
- [37:43]
Josh Kroshauer
So full disclosure, full disclosure. I been, I've been to the dinner, I've been to some of the parties. I'm not a member of the, of the, the association, though. I haven't covered, you know, I never covered the White House specifically as a beat. But look, I, to me, there's a part of me that just says good riddance.
- [38:03]
Charlie Sykes
Like, okay, okay, that's what I was going. Everybody outside of Washington hates this thing, hates this event where you have, everybody gets dressed up in a black tie and they hang out with the beautiful people from Hollywood and you have the reporters who are sitting at the table with the people they're writing about. And it just feels so self indulgent and every year it looks bad. This year, how do you read it? They did, they give in to pressure. They decide they had hired a comedian, a woman who was clearly going to have some Trump centric votes. And then they decided at the last minute, you know what, let's, for the first time ever, let's do without a comedian. We're not going to have it. We're going to be focused because I don't know, we're going to focus on ourselves, whatever. Kind of looked cavey. Well, look, how did you read that? Not a good look for a court.
- [38:52]
Josh Kroshauer
Not a member of the association. So I'll speak as an outsider on that, on that subject, but, you know, I am sort of, well, I shouldn't say surprised, but I, I'm a little bit struck by the fact that they have not used their leverage, the media covering the White House have not used their leverage and work together if they actually care about sort of their own interests. When the AP was kicked out of the pool.
- [39:16]
Charlie Sykes
Right.
- [39:16]
Josh Kroshauer
You know, and I know everyone, every individual network and every individual publication has to make their own choices. But I would have just tried to band together and say we're not going to show up in the briefing room. Frankly, those, you don't really make a whole lot of news anyway. Not being in the briefing room doesn't really deprive you of a whole lot other than maybe some televised sound bites for the press secretary. And let's see how the White House would react if Cat Turd is the only person there asking questions of the press secretary.
- [39:40]
Charlie Sykes
They might like that. See, this is the question. My sense is that they don't want to do that because they're not sure they have any leverage anymore. More.
- [39:49]
Josh Kroshauer
Well, they haven't tested that proposition and candidly, Charlie and I can, I think we know this. Trump does like the attention from, I mean, for as much as he attacks the, the mainstream press, he does crave the mainstream attention, at least in some, in some, with some networks and with some individuals. So you know, if there was any kind of working together and actually, you know, actually doing what an association often does, which is sticking together and having the media outlets, you know, making like minded decisions, then I think they would have more leverage. But clearly every, no one, no one's really sticking their neck out to defend the AP and, and everyone's going on with their daily business. So as long as that dynamic. Same. Same thing with the law firms, by the way.
- [40:29]
Charlie Sykes
I was just gonna say that. Yep. Yeah.
- [40:31]
Josh Kroshauer
I mean there is this collective action problem where I think, I think actually if you work together, you actually could get concessions. And Trump does again, Trump does want to be, to see this press secretary sparring with the media and actually like getting the attention from, from big names in the, in the press. But no one said we're not going to show up. Or you know, you can, you can have your, your sycophants, you know, ask questions. No, no one's actually gotten to that point. And frankly, as long as that's going to, as long as the White House Correspondent association, all the members are, have different interests and they don't stick together, the White House is going to have the advantage. Like it's the rule of politics. If you're divided, you're losing. Well, the individual outlets have their own interests. They're not on the same page and the White House knows what it wants, so they're winning the fight. And you saw that with the dinner too, where it became a big mess.
- [41:21]
Charlie Sykes
No, and you're right to point out the same thing's happening with the big law firms. If all the big law firms basically went shoulder to shoulder, went to the federal courts and say this is clearly illegal, this is clearly unconstitutional, this goes to the very, very heart of the rule of law. I think they would win. I think they would win in court. I think that if they showed solidarity, they would be able to blow past this and Trump would blink. But what Trump has figured out is that he can separate them out. He can make a deal with Paul Weiss. Yeah. You know, General Block may stand against him, but then he gets, you know, Wilkie and far. Which kind of surprised me caving in. And so we are, you know, among the things that surprised me, I'd be interested in your take on all of this. You know, I'm not shocked by Trump's agenda or what he is attempting to do. I didn't see the role of Elon Musk quite as dramatic as it was. What has shocked me has been the collapse of civil society in its willingness to push back against these predations. You know, and I'm talking, we're talking about the media, we're talking about entertainment, we're talking about, you know, private companies, but also particularly the law firms because you'd figure you're a big billion dollar law firm. If you can't stand up for yourself, who can?
- [42:36]
Josh Kroshauer
And I will say, like one of Trump's political strengths is understanding sort of the fundamental weaknesses and the cowardice of a lot of his enemies. Right. Even. And he's exposed sort of that divide between high minded principles. You know, democracy dies in darkness and then, but not when you're under pressure, not apparently when you're facing political pressure from the President. So I mean a lot he's really, especially in the second term is really tried to, to, to, to wedge those or really pour salt in the wounds of some of his enemies. And to maybe to his own surprise, they've backed down with, with a speed and many of them at least have back down with a speed that even I didn't see, see common. So a lot about, about the kind of the, the political moment and the mood of the country and the mood of.
- [43:21]
Charlie Sykes
Well, in terms of the way.
- [43:22]
Josh Kroshauer
Yeah like these institutions, we're also seeing the weakness of institutions. Right. We assume that one of the strength, strength of American democracy is, is the strength of institutions. And we saw this is not just a Trump phenomenon, but we've seen the weakening of leader, institutional leaders in all aspects of society. And Trump has just really kind of proven that with, with his aggressive moves and the surrender by, by so many of these law firms and, and media institutions.
- [43:49]
Charlie Sykes
Well, he started, you know, meaning he, he, he started with, with the Republican Party and he had the reptilian instinct to go after the weakness and, and to divide people up. And now he's spreading it to the rest of society. You know, Josh, I have to have you back because we have to talk about the new Biden books that are coming out. I wanted to get to that. Have you started? I actually started reading, you know, the first one. And boy, I will tell you that I have lots and lots and lots of questions. And I think Democrats are, Democrats right now are having a great week, but they're going to go through some things when they have to really confront, I think, the Biden years. And I, I don't think they've gotten that out of their system yet. What do you think?
- [44:28]
Josh Kroshauer
Oh, yeah. I mean, I, I haven't started. I know, I know. Jonathan Allen and Amy Parnes's book just, just came out. I'm gonna have to read it. But no, look, I'm part of the Democrats. Where did Biden lose his, his, his political altitude? It was, it was, it was certainly the age factor at the debate, but it was also lying about Afghanistan, like telling everyone in the first year of the presidency at a chaotic situation that was just brutal to watch on television. But what you saw before your own eyes was not the reality. And that was where the Biden numbers went downhill. That's where he lost credibility. You see Ron Klain in one of these books saying, oh, yeah, of course, you know, Biden wasn't with it during the debate, but that's not what he said publicly. He lied to, to the press when.
- [45:07]
Charlie Sykes
He was very awkward.
- [45:08]
Josh Kroshauer
And it's not, that's how you lose credibility. It's not just the one, it's not just the Trump. It is the, the fact that people who lead institutions, people in positions of influence, feel like they don't need to tell the truth. And that's how you get to this degraded position we're in right now.
- [45:23]
Charlie Sykes
That is exactly right. Josh Kroczhauer, thank you so much for joining me. Josh is the editor in chief of Jewish Insider. Check him out online. And thank you all for watching this episode of to the Contrary podcast. We do this every week and it's more important than ever to remind ourselves that we are not the crazy. Thanks.